Christopher Gillespie

Licensing

Chris has an extensive advisory practice in the fields of gambling and licensing. In 2014 he was instructed to advise the then government of Bermuda on its proposed gambling legislation. He can be instructed either through solicitors or in appropriate cases on a direct access basis.

Recent instructions have included:

• Whether particular schemes constituted an unlawful lottery
• Whether a particular lottery was entitled to withhold £1m of winnings
• Whether a gambler who had self-excluded from online betting had a claim against bookmakers at whose physical premises he continued to gamble
• Advising companies on the renewal of SEV licences
• Advising companies in relation to annual reviews and potential proceedings by the Gambling Commission  The potential liability of personal licensees and/or qualifying persons
• Advising companies and individuals generally in proceedings brought by Licensing Authorities or the Gambling Commission

Chris also accepts instructions to appear before Licensing Authorities and the Gambling Commission and in appeals from these bodies.

Notable Cases:

SO v SS

The Claimant who described himself as “a problem gambler” lost his claim against Star Sports, a Mayfair bookmaker, for the return of betting losses incurred whilst he was in a “betting frenzy”. Chris represented Star Sports (“SS”). The Claimant had argued that SS, in providing him with facilities to gamble, supplied a service to which the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applied. There was an implied term that SS would perform its services with “reasonable care and skill” pursuant to section 49(1). That much was conceded. However, it was further argued that, as it was a condition of the SS’s operating licence that it would comply with the Social Responsibility Code Provisions issued by the Gambling Commission, any failure to abide by that Code was a breach of the implied term, which entitled the Claimant to claim damages. The Claim failed on every ground. The judge noted that that the Claimant, notwithstanding a detailed Part 18 Request for Further Information, had refused to provide any financial records to demonstrate the extent of his winnings and losses and how they related to his general financial situation. Further, he had failed to provide any medical or psychiatric evidence of his mental state during the relevant period. His case was inconsistent and self-contradictory in a number of crucial respects, including what he had said about his problematic gambling to employees of SS. Read more here.

This case was widely publicised, media links: The Times | Daily Mail | Racing Post